Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Dubai Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I'm assuming that its man overboard for Dubai Ports' deal to take over of ports in New York and other cities now that its been revealed by the Jerusalem Post that the company supports an Arab boycott of Israel (hat tip to Think Progress).  The deal was already on the ropes, and this will push it into the deep blue.

But there could be one positive spillover from what otherwise looks like just another political foul-up for the Bush Administration.  The Dubai deal has finally gotten politicians - both nationally and in key coastal cities - to start talking seriously about port security.  Port security has been a watchword since right after 9/11, but while great plans have been laid on paper, and Bush has outlined a thorough maritime security agenda, virtually nothing has been implemented.  Most Americans simply don't spend a lot of time thinking about boats, and its been tough to get political leaders to focus on unsexy imperatives like rigorous container inspection.  Lorelei looks at some of the key steps that need to be taken (and why they haven't been) here. 

As the Dubai Ports deal sputters out, lets make sure our leaders don't let Dubai Ports float away without leaving a commitment to true progress on true port security in its wake.

Eating Velveeta in Tehran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This is almost enough to restore one's faith that the people's of the world will overcome their differences and avert nuclear war:   This Onionesque headline reports that the Iranian confectioners union has renamed Danish pastries - which are evidently all the rage in Persia - Roses of the Prophet Mohammed.   Rather than banishing their beloved cheese danish, bakers have covered up signs that remind their countrymen of the raging controversy over the Muslim cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands -Postens, replacing them with homages to the maligned seer.   

The move echoes the redubbing  French Fries sold in the Capital Hill cafeteria "Freedom Fries" after the French declined to support the American-led invasion of Iraq.   By taking a page from a sorely misguided republican Congressman, the Iranian bakers have, amidst a tense international fracas, offered the people of Iran, the US and the rest of the world a chance to step back and share a good laugh that maybe, just maybe, could point the way toward some broader common ground.

Iraq War Epitaph Being Written in Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Today Condi Rice went up on the Hill to request $85 million in supplemental funding for democracy promotion activities - like radio and TV broadcasts, fellowships and exchanges - targeted at Iran.   

(The news comes the same day as this report about how government funds allocated to advancing America's image and objectives in the Middle East are being siphoned off to poorly run and dishonest outfits like the Lincoln Group. )

Rice's announcement today underscores just how tight a corner we sit in on Iraq right now.  I am not an expert in the region, but the way I have understood the last few years of Iran policy is as follows:  there are those, like former CIA and National Security Council official Flynt Leverett, who felt that since 9/11 the Administration squandered a major opportunity with Iran. 

Leverett has argued that Iran's more reform-minded, stable government under former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani made numerous overtures toward the Administration that - if reciprocated - could have culminated in Iranian cooperation on terror and other issues, on a thawing of relations, and on continued popular support for reformers as a potential bridge between the Iranian people and the West.   

Muslim Cartoons, Jyllands Posten and Some Second Thoughts Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Lots of interesting response here and at the Huffington Post on my musings on the cartoon controversy, which continues to rage.  In posting here I often read through what's being said in newspapers and blogs and try to offer up something I think isn't already out there.  In doing so, I don't always restate the obvious.  But this time maybe I should have.   

Yes, I believe that violence in response to images and cartoons is wrong and inexcusable.   Period.

Yes, I believe that all free societies need to defend to the death the freedoms that make them what they are.    But we need to do so in smart ways that do not have the unintended affect of inflaming the tensions we are trying to tamp down or of undercutting our own values in the name of preserving them.   This is a very tough balance to strike; we and the Europeans are learning lessons the hard way.

Yes, I think the governments in the countries where some of the most destructive protests have taken place were obligated to do far more to protect the peace.  But it also seems rather far-fetched to me to actually believe they would have done so, given the politics of the situation and their own sometimes tenuous hold on power.  Whatever "the answer" is, it isn't about the Syrians or the Lebanese somehow getting these radical forces under control, because that won't happen anytime soon.

No, I don't think the Danish government should have contemplated - for a moment - taking any action against any of the newspapers that published the images.   When I spoke of the need for the Danish government to meet with Islamic leaders, I had in mind conversations with moderate Islamic clerics and others with an interest in trying to calm tempers, not to retaliate against the exercise of free speech.

No, I don't think the answer to Islamic extremism in Europe or anywhere else lies solely in reconciliation, conversation, or social programs.  There are a frightening number of Islamic radicals who are far beyond the reach of those kinds of efforts, and need to be met with the most sophisticated and fearless intelligence, law enforcement and anti-terror tactics.  But there are hundreds of thousands of others who have not yet crossed that line, and should be prevented from doing so -- if at all possible -- for their own sake and ours.

Muslim Cartoons, Jyllands Posten and the Terror at Home Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Until this weekend I classed the Muslim cartoon fracas as an interesting story I didn't have time to follow.   But with the outrage yielding some of the most violent attacks the Middle East has seen lately (outside of Iraq, that is) - namely the sacking of the Danish consulate in Beirut and of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus - the protesters have gotten what they clearly are after: a closer look from the Western media.

The story is labyrinthine and goes something like this:  A Danish children's book author penned a tale about the Mohammed and couldn't find an illustrator willing to buck a supposed Muslim prohibition on images of the prophet (think Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh).   

Hearing that story, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands Posten challenged a group of cartoonists to interpret Mohammad.  They came up with images including one in which his turban was a bomb with the lit wick.  The paper published these back in September, and the uproar has mounted steadily fueled by a variety of half-apologies wrapped within defenses of freedom of speech.   Several European papers reprinted the images last week, whereas American papers for the most part have not.  The images themselves and a detailed chronology of the affair are available at Wikipedia.   I also recommend this Guardian piece for a good overview.

So, what the hell's really going on?  It's hard to remember the last time anyone got seriously mad at the Scandinavians.  After all, the Danish are among the west's most generous aid donors (however, those funds have been cut back in the last few years under a right-wing government).  Denmark was part of the original coalition in the Iraq war and has about 500 men in serving in Iraq.

The issues are complex.  There's no question that Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers had the right to publish the images.   For those that republished them knowing their incendiary impact, thorny questions of balancing newsworthiness with sensitivity arise:  Egyptian papers routinely publish offensive anti-Semitic images; yet it might be legitimate for another paper to republish some of these in a story about the Egyptian media's hostility to Jews.   

While attributing the acts of an independent newspaper to the Danish government betrays a lack of understanding of how a free press works, Copenhagen may have waited way too long to respond to overtures from Muslim leaders, thus opening the way for escalation.

For those trying to take a step back and interpret, at least two things are worth talking about.

Palestinian Elections Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Here's an email I received from a friend of mine regarding the Hamas success in the Palestinian elections.  He is an international legal consultant--who is working in several Middle Eastern countries. The short of it: Hamas will have to moderate to survive:

Yes, it's not a surprise to me that Hamas did so well.  It's only natural that given a choice, people will turn against corrupt, repressive, entrenched regimes that have failed to deliver on their promises. You'd have a similar result in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood if they were allowed to mount a serious campaign.  (Maybe the current US leadership will feel a similar backlash)

As for what will happen, only time will tell.  I would guess that Hamas is in a bit of shock right now.  They would probably feel much more comfortable as the outside opposition party than as the ruling party that's expected to deal with the US and Israel as the voice of the Palestinian people.  Since they're not really qualified to do that (and don't want to be seen as cooperating with the US and Israel), they'll probably reach out to Fatah and give them some role in the Government. They are totally unprepared to govern at that level and if they try, they'll probably fail.  On the other hand, I'm sure there are lots of Palestinians who will be thrilled with the prospect of change and will be willing to stick with Hamas for a while despite some setbacks.  And of course there's the big question regarding who will fill Sharon's shoes on the other side of the "separation barrier." 

Most Palestinians, like most Israelis, want peace.  Let's hope democracy works in the sense that eventually it will result in the expression and implementation of the will of the people.

Hammered by Hamas Posted by Suzanne Nossel

President Bush called yesterday's Palestinian election results a "wake up call" for senior Palestinian leadership.  Only they didn't know they were sleeping on the ledge of a 10-story building, nor that the morning alarm would come in the form of a swift shove.  No one has had the time to fully digest the results, but here are a couple of observations in relation to US policy:

1.  Bush's neglect is Hamas' gain - As progressives, we've long criticized Bush for failing to fully engage in the Israel-Palestinian peace process.   Team Bush's involvement in pressing peace has been intermittent at best:  at first Bush seemed reluctant to wade in where Clinton had tried and failed; later in the Administration Bush was too distracted, mainly by Iraq. 

Hamas' victory grows out of this neglect:  at the simplest level, if it had reached a settlement with Israel, Fatah would still be in power.   More broadly, the US's failure to engage bred a sense of stagnation that fueled popular frustrations with the party.  Time passed, and the momentum built up at various points (for example, right after initial combat operations ended in Iraq, and right after the Gaza pullout)  repeatedly disintegrated into hopelessness.   This is an example of the unwillingness to take more risk has wrought a worse outcome probably worse than a policy tried and failed.

2. US Aid to the PA - The US funnels hundreds of millions a year to the Palestinian Authority.  If Hamas takes over key ministries and other functions, this money will go to the hands of a terrorist organization, something Congress has already resolved not to allow.  Yet a substantial cut-off in US aid could quickly doom the already precarious PA down. 

While we can wait until a new Palestinian government is formed, thereafter we should provide the PA with a list of clear demands - agreed with the Europeans and other major aid donors - that must be met for the monies to continue to flow.  These prerequisites would have to include revision of the Hamas charter provision calling for Israel's destruction, a platform the group's leadership has vowed to maintain. 

Here Bush can and should call Hamas' bluff:  they've run on a platform of delivering social services and basic needs to the population, and making good will require funds.  Yet a frightening scenario could involve Hamas responding to a US aid shut off by turning to Iran, Syria or others for support.  By turning its back entirely on Hamas, we may risk driving a pragmatic group toward its own worst extremes.

The key to avoiding this worst-case scenario may be getting moderate Arab countries - Jordan and Egypt in particular - to help convince the Hamas-led government that by isolating itself and aligning with Islamists and terrorists they will quickly lose their following among the mostly secular Palestinian population and/or see the Palestinian territories devolve into a failed state.   The last thing the Arab countries want is a Palestinian basket case of a partly-born nation on their doorsteps.  Jordan and Egypt each have their own domestic Islamist concerns which will complicate any mediating efforts.  But still, a unified front consisting of the US, Europe, Russia, and Palestinian neighbors is probably our best bet.

Hamas Upset in Palestinian Elections Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Latest count has Hamas at 76, Fatah at 43.  For more on what this means, look here. 

I applaud Bush for saying:  "I have made it very clear that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal."  I have always thought the Administration's refusal to deal with Arafat was sound policy with good results.  But now virtually everything needs to be rethought. 

This will prompt heavy introspection on democracy promotion, support given to nascent democratic governments and movements, the role of extremist organizations in democratic settings and virtually everything else about the region.  We will feel the reverberations of the ballots cast for years to come.  More later.

As Palestinians Go to the Polls, Peace Holds its Breath Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This January is claiming a place in Middle East history as a critical turning point for relations between Israelis and Palestinians and for peace prospects in the region.  Ariel Sharon - who had improbably emerged as the region's best chance for reaching a final political settlement - lies in a deep coma.  His heir apparent, former Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, has been making all the right noises and seems ready to assume Sharon's mantle as a fearless leader hellbent on moving Israel forward.   

On Wednesday, Palestinians will vote in Parliamentary elections that could determine whether Sharon is remembered as a Moses who led his people to the edge of the promised land, or a fleeting blip of hope amid decades of violent conflict.   Hamas has been steadily gaining on Fatah in political polls, largely because of Mahmoud Abbas' failure to root out corruption and address some of the most basic frustrations and indignities of life in the Palestinian territories. 

Hamas has called for Israel's destruction, has sponsored dozens of deadly suicide attacks, and professes unwillingness to negotiate with Israel.   Some, including Abbas and Condi Rice, believe that electoral victory may prompt Hamas' transition from a violent militia to a legitimate political organization, but this may be just wishful thinking.  For Palestinians, the attraction to Hamas may be motivated just as much by the party's reputation for delivering quality social services and refusing to tolerate corruption as it is by the group's stance on Israel.

How Much We've Learned? Posted by Michael Signer

I'm trying to figure out how to compare the news of our internationalist, and robust, approach to Iran with the Bush Administration's (bi)polar opposite tactic in Iraq without seeming petty, catty, and snarky, so bear with me here.   I'm also going to try not to gloat, which will doubtless require an almost physical effort.

Here's what we do know. 

We currently have Russia, China, Great Britain, Germany, and France helping us work through this.  Great Britain, Germany, and France all support strong intervention of the UN's International Atomic Energy Association, with an "extraordinary" meeting set for February 2.  China and Russia are a little less enthusiastic, which is to be expected from economic partners with Iran -- but the point is they're helping out, and working with us.

This feels so much better than three years ago.  Out of those, four -- Russia, China, Germany, and France -- opposed us in the Iraq war.  In retaliation, the Bush Administration barred all four from bidding for reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq.